VA-SEN: Mark Warner (D) to run
Warner begins with large lead over likely challengers
By Adam C Posted in 2008 — Comments (45) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Tax-hiker, but popular, ex-GOV Mark Warner dropped out of the Presidential race quickly and was rumored to be a likely VP choice. But it now seems he has sunk to the level of running for a mere Senate seat.
Republicans and especially VA GOPers should be very worried about this development. Early polls show Warner leading Davis and Gilmore 57-30 and 54-34 respectively. Davis has some name ID issues being only a Congressman but Gilmore does not. Warner would likely be able to keep this seat as long as he wanted it. And he would finish the sweep of VA for the Democrats with the Governor and both Senators being Ds.
Mark Warner's high tax mentality should fit right in among fellow Democrats in the Senate. And alongside a President Hillary Clinton, it will not be long before tax rates and other fees are rising on all Americans.
Nevertheless, it seems likely that the VA GOP is about to embark on a nasty primary consisting of character attacks, moderate vs. conservative battle lines, and a general nastiness that will turn off the very voters who are already sympathetic to Warner. Unless something changes the dynamic of this race, it is already a likely D pickup.
Put alongside CO, NH, ME, OR, MN, and NE, Democrats are likely to gain 4-7 seats this cycle. The next Congress could easily have 42 to 45 R Senators.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Jets v. Sharks: The GOP Primary Field Of Dreams — Comments (4) »
VA-SEN: Mark Warner (D) to run 45 Comments (0 topical, 45 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
George Allen sure did come up way short last cycle.
“We don’t need any more cultural centers,” Mr. Coburn said. “We’re fighting a war; why should we be spending any more on a cultural center?”
It's not the conservatives that Adam is saying are going to be swept out of the caucus this time around...
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
True for the most part, but Allard is a good conservative (as is Schaffer), and Coleman and Sununu are both pretty darn good especially for where they're from.
My point is a lot of the time on here people attack moderates who lose and say the party is dumb for running them, but when conservatives lose that's never questioned.
“We don’t need any more cultural centers,” Mr. Coburn said. “We’re fighting a war; why should we be spending any more on a cultural center?”
Santorum was a social conservative in a purple state and lost by 20. Talent was a quiet conservative in a right-of-center state and lost. Chafee was a liberal in a liberal state and lost.
But if your point is that Rs most endangered Senators are in purple and blue states, congrats you should go get a PhD for your insight.
Coburn, DeMint, and Kyl wouldn't win in ME or OR. If the local GOP cannot be different in some respects to better fit its state, then the GOP will continue to lose ground in swing states and the few blue seats it has right now.
Ds have figured this out. They run Webb, Landrieu, Pryor, Johnson, and others who fit their state well even if they aren't down-the-line lefties. Rs are going to have to figure that out at some point and realize that unless 30+ states are actually "red" they have to win in swing states like NH, OR, MN, ME, VA, OH, and PA.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
Are you saying that we should abandon John Sununu (and Judd Gregg), Susan Collins (and Olympia Snowe), Gordon Smith, and Norm Coleman?
If you want a Senate made up of 35 GOP Senators, by all means, subscribe to the same ideological purity test that the Democrats ran against Joe Lieberman.
However what I'm saying is I'm sick of being told that we need to run left to win, when the people who DO run left either lose or bolt the party.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
The point is there are states where we can't run Tom Coburn and win. The fact that this is true doesn't mean that running Linc Chafee will always win in RI, it just means that if we're going to even have a chance at winning in RI, that's the type of Republican we're going to have to run.
If Chafee ran as a conservative I'm sure he'd still be a Senator. Neil, I really respect your input and your writing at RS but your argument is getting really silly at this point.
Do you think Smith, Collins, Chafee, or Coleman would have a better or worse chance at re-election if they had Santorum's voting record?
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
Rs lose in states that lean more to the left. Fascinating.
And somehow Santorum, Talent, Burns, and Allen were all able to lose as well. And they were in more friendly states. Does that mean that being conservative must be avoided at all costs?
Maybe we should just be open to the fact that states are different and different candidates will do well in different places. Snowe should not run in AL and Shelby should not run in ME.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
If we're losing it's not because of our message, period. You can be a darling of the religious right, you can make every anti-War on Terror vote you think you have to, you can be beloved by most in the party, and you can still lose.
It's not the message. It's the messengers.
I'm not saying that we necessarily have to run right (thought for my part I think we in California must continue to represent our party mainstream, though cClifornia is much less homogenous than the northeastern states we're typically talking about here), but I don't want to be told that the evidence shows our parties in states like Virginia suddenly need to run left.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
It can be very hard to carry across in this medium, and sometimes I do get frustrated with what you say, I like reading what you have to say and I think that the focus you bring is good, though at times diametrically opposed to mine, heh.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Better Warner than Davis. He'll cost us less in the long run.
When Cass Sunstein gets confirmed to the Supreme Court because we're one vote short of being able to filibuster. Or when national health insurance gets passed. Or, well, just about anything.
This could get a lot worse than the 4-7 Senate seats Adam is talking about, and 2010 doesn't look all that much better for us than 2012.
Well if it's that bad then all the idiot voters can get what's coming to them and LIKE IT.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
It will take down the non-idiot and idiot voters alike. There's nowhere for you and I to go once America falls 100% for statism. And we have a pretty poor record of getting rid of middle class entitlements once they're put into place.
Seriously, do you really think that 58 Democratic Senators + President Hillary + 240 Dems in the House wouldn't do irreparable harm to the country (yes, I know Dems had this margin with Clinton from 93-94, but it was a Dem party with a MUCH larger conservative Dem wing)? And by irreparable, I really mean irreparable.
Nothing drives me more batty than how Democrats can elect so many senators from our states (and reps from our districts).
Not that VA is the GOP bastion it once was, but the disparity between Dem held seats Bush won and GOP held seats Kerry won is absurd, frustrating, and worrying. It looks like it's only going to get worse this cycle.
“We don’t need any more cultural centers,” Mr. Coburn said. “We’re fighting a war; why should we be spending any more on a cultural center?”
Jim Gilmore ran a fool's campaign for President, embarassing himself and his state on the national level, and now he wants to throw his weight around in a state that's longing to forget all about him? He is a joke, and his flirting with a Senate bid is doing demonstrable damage to the state and national party. He should have realized his time was up seven years ago. Sadly, it seems as if Jim Gilmore is dedicated to burn out in a blaze of pathetic vanity.
...and examine the polls 12 months from now. The Dems are lucky this go around in that they have a lot of attractive candidates, that doesn't = victory. Two weeks is an eternity in politics, and 14 months is a lifetime. Did anyone think the Dems would pick up 30+ house seats and 6 Senate seats in September of 2005?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
National situation could surely help Republicans in the future, aka it is better than now, but for Warner it will make no difference since he was widely popular governor. Sununu looks like he is gone because I don't see how an incumbant who is running 15 points BEHIND can make up that difference. I still think Hagel's seat will go Democrats because it looks like there will be a nasty Republican primary. That is 3 seats right there. I think you will pick up M. Landreiu (sp) so that is 2 seats.
I think Maine will be ok for Republicans but Oregon and Minn. are starting to look bad especially since a former Republican is running as an Independent which will surely take votes away from the Republican incumbent.
-----------------------------------------------
Notice to All - I am an independent who has voted for Senator Bayh (Democrat) and Senator Lugar (Republican) along with over 60% of my state. You may take what I say with a grain of salt at your own party'
The Republican Party has got to get better at recruiting, Democrats are a lot better at fielding good candidates that can be competitive, even in strong Republican states.
We should have at least 60 Republican Senators in Congress, considering there are at least 30 "Deep Red" states.
This is going to be a tough election cycle for Republicans in the Senate. I'm actually optimistic about Republicans holding on to the White House, especially if Hillary is the Dems nominee, but I'm afraid we're going to lose several Senate seats.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Unless you are counting VA, OH, NH, FL, and some other very purple states.
There are a lot of Ds in "red" states but no one is attacking them every day (unlike moderate GOPers who are attacked just for sport). Pryor (D-AR), Johnson (D-SD), Landrieu (D-LA) and Rockfeller (D-WV) are all up this cycle. Those are 4 states that went for President Bush by 10 or more percent (15 or more in LA, SD, and WV). But there are no local bloggers here complaining about their every vote. There is no noticeable activism to hold them responsible for siding with Harry Reid on many silly issues.
Instead we seem to be dead set on attacking Snowe, Collins, Specter, Davis, and any other non-pure GOPer.
Check out Dkos. They harp on every word and vote from R Senators in swing states, much less blue states. When the grass roots and blogosphere figure out their priorities, then a change might happen.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
...and I'd throw in Byron Dorgan (North Dakota) and Montana (which has 2 Dems). Both of those states are solidly Republican.
One thing about DKos, they strictly adhere to Reagan's 11th (on the Dem side at least). They do not criticize red state Democrats because they realize they need them to keep their majority. On Red State, I honestly believe that people get more satisfaction out of trashing some Republican who doesn't toe the line on everything, than they do by trashing Democrats, or helping moderate GOPers in swing states.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Regardless of how red you want to argue the individual states are, in a two-way race the Republicans almost always win around 30 states in the Electoral College. Throw in some of the purple states outside that 30 that can go both ways (where a Republican should win at least some of the time) and getting 60 seats in the Senate should be easy.
Compare that to the Democrats, which only have about 15 "Deep-Blue" states, and I think it's obvious that Republicans need to do a better a job of recruiting candidates in their own backyard.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
It's funny how we have raging left wing liberals in the senate in Montana, North Dakota, Arkansas, New Mexico, Iowa, and Indiana - and Democrats never talk about losing THOSE seats.
But here we have a great senator in Sununu, and we put up the white flag.
Sununu can win if he gets our unconditional support, but not if we wail about how he "can't win."
Sununu is not out of step with New Hampshire the way Santorum was with Pennsylvania. Not even close. Sununu can win, and Shea-Porter is probably going to lose to Bradley in the NH congressional race this year, also.
We must take a stand in New Hampshire and fight for our great senators. Sununu is one of our VERY GREATEST senators. He's worth going to the mat for.
They gained seats in 2006 because (among other factors) they fielded candidates that were palatable and similar to large parts of the population of that district or state (they claimed to be anyway). We need to do the same.
I get really tired of the qualifier people try to put on our candidates. The Republican party is there to get people elected, not to force people to submit to conservative litmus tests. The fact is we need moderate Republicans to gain and hold Congressional majorities.
In Virginia, Mark Warner is looking like the super candidate right now. If we had a superior social conservative candidate that was willing to run, I'd support him. BUT WE DON'T!
Tom Davis, while not the most conservative candidate in the field, is far and away the best candidate we have. In fact, I'd support ten Tom Davis' if it would prevent large Dem Congressional majorities and a Dem president!
We need to support the best candidates in each race, not just the most conservative ones.
I don't think the party exists as a machine to elect people with Rs beside their names. I think it exists to let the various factions within it make common cause to acheive their goals.
So absolutely, yes, every member has every right to apply whatever litmus tests he darn well wants to, and if a candidate fails enough people's tests, then he's not going to be our nominee.
Put another way, if electing Tom Davis (and I am saying if, because I'd never heard of him before today) won't bring us further toward those goals, then we shouldn't nominate him.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
If its not Tom Davis, its Jim Gilmore, and Mark Warner can spend his money helping other Democrats get elected--THAT'S how sure his victory would be.
DKos does support centrist Democrats for them to get elected but advocates for liberal views. It is much easier to get Republican goals past with a Republican Congress. You have to ask yourself what is your common cause because Rudy is leading in the national polls and he is Pro Choice, Pro Gay Rights, Pro Gun Control and to me that doesn't sound Republican that doesn't even sound like a Hoosier Democrat.
I always laugh when I find Democrats crying over their Rep not supporting a withdrawl amendment or something stupid like impeachment of the President. Then they start talking about Primaries and crap like that which make them look even more crazy. To me that is how I also see some in the Republican Party. Not every state is Georgia. Congrats to the Republican Party on capturing the Deep South, but in return you lost the Northeast. Politics is like a game of chess you got to make the right moves to stay in power and in control. That means allowing Republicans in Georgia to be like Republicans in Georgia and let Republicans in Maine be like them. Santorum got destroyed in 2006 because he was out of the mainstream in his state, congrats for Republicans for now having a Democrat in his place.
You see my point?
-----------------------------------------------
Notice to All - I am an independent who has voted for Senator Bayh (Democrat) and Senator Lugar (Republican) along with over 60% of my state. You may take what I say with a grain of salt at your own party'
Your comment "I don't think the party exists as a machine to elect people with Rs beside their names. I think it exists to let the various factions within it make common cause to acheive their goals." is dead on target.
What good is a majority when the members of that majority vote with the Democrats? Yeah, we own the committee chairmanships and can control what bills reach the floor. Whoop-de-freakin-do - when the RINOs vote against conservative bills, we have accomplished exactly nothing.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
I'm as somebody who's as ideologically driven as they come. But party politics aren't about ideology -- they're about building majorities and electing candidates.
Obviously, every voter -- whether a member of a particular party or not -- can use whatever rationale they want to determine how to cast their vote (not to mention things like donations and the like).
But the party apparatus itself can't be so dogmatic. If it did, it would cease being an effective political party and begin becoming something more like the Libertarian Party -- a political party in name only that, though it elects precious few candidates for public office, is nonetheless ideologically rigid.
I realize that conservatives and liberals alike take pleasure in purging members of their own party who don't hew to a particular doctrine. But these are often Pyrrhic victories -- as, typically, the space is filled by an alternative that is even less friendly to their causes.
See what happened with the left and Joe Lieberman. By successfully purging him, they ended up with a Senator who no longer has much of an obligation to serve the Democratic Party's needs in Congress.
On the Virginia Senate race have been the most mind boggling things I've ever read at this site.
Maybe when I wake up tomorrow it'll all make a little more sense why some people are not only willing to concede a seat in a Republican leaning state fourteen months out, but some are rooting for the Democrat if our nominee is the guy that chaired our congressional campaign effort just five years ago.
Giving away one of one hundred Senate seats for maybe the next two decades for this reason or that. Jesus. I'm embarrassed. This is such a loser mentality. How are we ever going to win if we act like this?
How many times have we been told that this is a REPUBLICAN website, and not a conservative one? Sheesh.
I can't wait to see what happens here if the nominee isn't Fred. Every day's gonna be a new set of attacks on Romney or Rudy or McCain. People here have way too much fun hating on the minority Republicans and spend way too little time thinking about how to actually win back the majority so we can work on important things. It's nice to point out how we failed to pass SS reform or that the prescription drug bill stinks, but it's like we all forget about the tax cuts and Roberts and Alito.
Whatever, keep up these attitudes. Have fun with lots more dead unborn babies thanks to awful court nominees, and higher taxes, and socialized medicine. It's gonna be a blast! But hey, at least Mark Warner won!
Rant over. And it's probably at least a little out of line, but the more I think about the positions some of you are taking, I can't even wrap my head around it.
“We don’t need any more cultural centers,” Mr. Coburn said. “We’re fighting a war; why should we be spending any more on a cultural center?”
Why do I hear stuff like Sununu is going to lose, and it's still a year+ till decision 2008. Sununu has been a strait conservative on enough important issues, votes against wasteful spending and has been quiet and efficient for NH. And not corrupt at all (which is the #1 reason why we lost in 2006) And Gov. Lynch has declined to run against him? Judd Gregg won easily in 2004. I know that NH is not a bullet proof R seat, but are you guys sound like you are putting him in the same category as Conrad Burns, or George Allen? Just because he has an R before his name?
I may ask the same for Norm Coleman. He hasn't done anything majorly wrong and his opponent seems like Al Franken? LOL, the Franken from Air-America running for senate???
Sununu should pull it off on any Dem challenger (except Lynch) by at least 2 and Norm should beat Franken solidly (barring any problems). I don't mean to be too optimisitc (yes, the conservative Republicans need strong grassroot support and local backing like they have been getting from the past), but lets put an end to this "we are going to lose" attitude and save the conservative Republicans that don't do any sort of long term damage to the party!
NE won't go blue!
NH went big D in 2006. Both Congressional seats and scores of state house and senate seats (both chambers flipped). Polls show Sununu down 15-20 points to Shaheen if she runs... and he is the incumbent.
You describe him well. "Sununu has been a strait conservative on enough important issues, votes against wasteful spending and has been quiet and efficient for NH." And if this was GA or SC, he'd be fine.
But it's just about time to admit that being a straight-laced, ethical man who votes consistently conservatively is going to lose in NH against a strong D candidate.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
I can understand why you would think a sitting Governor would be the strongest Democrat candidate, but he's not. Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, whom he beat last time, is. She is currently running 20 points ahead of Sununu. Polls for an incumbent in this race can only be compared to one in the last few cycles: Rick Santorum in 2006. If Shaheen surprises everyone and decides against a run, Sununu has a winnable fight on his hands. If not, he's toast. I'd like to think otherwise, but it's true. Unlike other states, New Hampshire lives and breathes politics, and the numbers between two very popular and well-known state politicians are not going to change that much in a year. We need to concentrate on winnable races.
This is going to be a tough election cycle again, possibly, and we need to be ready to give as much as we possibly can to our endangered senate seats.
Collins will be fine, and I think that Smith and Coleman will easily survive if they run mildly competent campaigns.
NH, VA, CO, and (if Bob Kerrey runs) NE are going to be the seats that we need to work hard to protect. LA and SD are the seats we need to work hard to pick up.
We can do this and behind a unifying presidential candidate like Fred Thompson, turn an expected -4 to 7 seat loss into a +2 GOP win.
In order to do that, we need to have candidates to RALLY THE TROOPS behind, though. Tom Davis is NO SUCH CANDIDATE.
But rallying the VA GOP does not get one to 50%. It gets one to about 35-40%. And the next 10-15% in the middle already like Warner.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
They aren't going to jump ship for Tom Davis.
You know, in order to get market share, you have to offer an alternative.
I think that people in politics would not make so many stupid mistakes - like possibly nominating Tom Davis - if they studied more marketing, corporate strategy, and brand management.
Is no such candidate because you're refusing to get behind our strongest contender. Who do you want to see run for the seat?
Our strongest contender who polls behind the other Republican?
Funny definition you have of the "strongest contender."
Cash On Hand
“We don’t need any more cultural centers,” Mr. Coburn said. “We’re fighting a war; why should we be spending any more on a cultural center?”
But candidates win races.
Tom Davis could raise a billion dollars and would still probably lose the election because he's so seedy.
The stuff will come out over the course of the primary, and he won't get the nomination. Until then, by typical metrics, it's not out of bounds to consider him our strongest candidate.
“We don’t need any more cultural centers,” Mr. Coburn said. “We’re fighting a war; why should we be spending any more on a cultural center?”
Repubs are looking to surrender 14 months early.
BTW, 99% of America is paying LITTLE attention.
Geesh.
--------------------
Vista really sucks!
We've been told over and over again that we need to run whomever it takes to win, no matter how often they'll vote with the Democrats. And we're STILL going to lose in New Hampshire, Maine, Oregon, and Minnesota ANYWAY? The same way we already lost out when we ran Bob Smith, Jim Jeffords, and Linc Chafee?
Yeah, the Virginia Republicans are going to have a fight, and it's going to be over whether to follow the 'moderate' model that keeps LOSING ground for Republicans.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.